The historical claims that all species are descended from a common ancestor,that millions of mutations have accumulated and have led to supposed instances of macro-evolution,that transitional species have been discovered.
I see problems with the way this is presented here. The history is inferred from the theory. If evolution is descent with modification via cladistic speciation, there must logically be common ancestors. The historical inference is supported by much evidence that points in the same direction.
I guess one of the things you haven't explained very well yet is how the creation of individuals relates to inheritance. Are you assuming that any mutation which occurred in a previous generation will be wiped out with the creation of each new individual? If not, I don't see any way for mutations not to accumulate.
Another thing that raises a red flag for me is the idea that macro-evolution is connected to the accumulation of mutations. Do you define macro-evolution as simply a lot of evolutionary change? Scientifically, macro-evolution may not be connected with a lot of evolutionary change at all. What it is connected to is speciation: the splitting of one species into two or more distinct species. In an extreme case that can occur with only one or two mutations, or even with no mutations at all, but a chromosomal rearrangement like polyploidy.
As for no transitional species being found, that is malarky. A good number have been found, in addition to transitional forms bridging higher taxa.
The concept of evolution is simply the general idea that organisms have evolved,however that is to be understood.
I think this is too vague. To me, the concept of evolution is the description of the process of evolution. So we have on one hand the evidence that evolution has happened in history (leading to the historical inference of common descent) and on the other hand a concept of how evolution happens: via a process of modification and selection. The concept needs very little inference as a dozen or more means of modification have been discovered and tested as well as several forms of selection. A "concept of evolution" which ignores process is not much of a concept.
Furthermore, organisms don't evolve. Evolution is a population-level process. Organisms are conceived, born, live and die with no changes in their genome. Because evolution is measured by what percentage of a population expresses different varieties of a trait, it can only be seen as a statistical change in the population as one variation displaces others.
This is why I don't see any conflict between the creation of individuals and the theory of evolution. At least as long as the creation of individuals still incorporates the idea that they inherit traits (and the genes for those traits) from their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.
The theory ignores the reality that species exist as individual creatures that are created immediately. It ignores this because it wrongly explains descent as natural selection and genetic mutation in groups,rather than conception and reproduction of individual creatures.
But the theory does not say that genetic mutation happens in groups. In fact it insists that mutations happen in individuals. So, mutations fit within your view of individual creation.
Selection is necessarily a phenomenon that can only be applied to groups, because if you only have an individual there is nothing to select except reproduction or extinction. It's an all or nothing choice. But with two or more individuals with varying traits, a selection can be made that favours one variation over the other. Within your view, selection means the creator chooses to create more individuals with variation x and fewer with variation y. A series of such choices over time produces evolutionary change in the population.
Or, the creator may decide to divide the group and to create more individuals with variation x in one section of the population and more individuals with variation y in the other section. This gives us speciation (=macro-evolution): two species where there was only one before. This gives us bio-diversity.
The fact I am presenting,and which evolution theory ignores,is that species exist and come into existence immediately as individual creatures.
But they don't. No individual is a different species than its own parents or children or siblings. When one part of a population is separated from another and eventually loses the capacity to reproduce with its former siblings, that occurs to the whole group that is separated out and is, usually, a gradual process.
Take, for example, the situation of a founder effect. This occurs when a very small number of individuals are separated from a larger population, as may occur if a few birds migrate to a distant island. You can't have just one, or the migrants could not begin to populate the island. And in the first few generations, despite the separation, they will not be a different species from the population they left behind. If another migrant were to arrive, or if they were reunited with the main body of the population, they would simply fuse again into one population.
But many generations later, their descendants could well be a different species. Then, if a new migrant arrives, or if some of the island population is removed back to the home of its ancestors, no fusion takes place. This is not just theory. It has been observed in nature and duplicated in laboratory experiments.
But how does this contradict, in any way, the creation of individual creatures? What does it imply other than the creator's choice to favour the creation of one type of creature in one habitat and a different type in the other habitat?
There is a lot of my previous post you did not respond to. I would like you to think about and respond to some of these comments and questions, please.
Do you understand that the theory of evolution agrees that differences first occur in individuals, not simultaneously in whole populations? And that inheritance of traits is from individual to individual (parent to child) not a group phenomenon? How then does evolution ignore the existence of individuals?
Do you agree that in order for any selection to occur, there must be a pool of individuals with differing traits or there is nothing to select?
Now I agree with what you said of natural selection:
Natural selection is not an actual thing or force that selects,it is an effect - how differentials play out because of reproduction and death rates.
But do you agree that the way these differentials play out affects the character of the next generation?
I also ask if you deny that mutations accumulate. Your exact wording was:
What I deny is the idea that mutations have accumulated to the extent claimed by evolution theory . . . .
Well, if mutations accumulate at all, when does accumulation reach a limit? What is the acceptable limit for nearly four billion years of evolutionary change?
Please consider that macro-evolution is not a matter of stretching the limits of mutational accumulation. It is a matter of dividing one population from another to set them along different evolutionary pathways. The divided populations may or may not become significantly different in their characteristics over time, but as long as reproductive barriers divide them, that is macro-evolution.
So the issue of macro-evolution ought not to be tied to how many mutations have accumulated.
We reached common ground on species being defined by distinctive traits and capacity to reproduce together.
But, what about this?
gluadys said:
So what you expect to find, in order to differentiate species, is that all individuals in one group share a trait that is not found in the other, and vice versa. Right? In fact, if we list all the traits found in both species, they would probably fall into several categories such as
a. traits found in all individuals in both groups
b. traits found in some individuals in both groups
c. traits unique to one group or the other, found in all individuals in one group, but not in the other.
Would you agree that only those in the last category are useful in distinguishing one species from another?
Would you agree than an analysis of the DNA of individuals from each group would likely show a difference related to traits in category c?
And what about this?
gluadys said:
You mentioned earlier that species are identified by physical traits and reproductive relatedness. A species, by definition, is a group of individuals who can and will mate with each other. (Except in asexually reproducing species which have to be defined on traits alone). Typically (however much the idea is morally repugnant to humans) a parent can mate and reproduce successfully with its own offspring and vice versa. (There are a few exceptions, but this is the norm.) So by definition parent and offspring are necessarily grouped in the same species.
So the ambiguity you speak of is not just an artifact of not being able to see closely when the new kind of individual appears. It is a real ambiguity in the sense that although a child is necessarily of the same species as its parent, it is not necessarily of the same species as a more remote ancestor. If reproductive isolation is the key component in speciation (and by evolutionary theory it is) then it does not happen in more than a handful of cases that one individual is reproductively isolated from the population into which it was born. So in most cases, a new species cannot begin with only one individual, because reproductive isolation is a gradual process in itself and by the time it is completed you have a group on each side of the isolating boundary, not one individual.
Now this in no way conflicts with the idea that each creature is a direct individual creation. That can still be the case. But it does mean that a new species cannot emerge in the form of a single individual because single individuals are almost never reproductively isolated from siblings, parents or children. That group (as well an any larger population they are a part of) will always be identified as the same species sharing the same gene pool. Dividing the gene pool has to be done in such a way that there is a population on both sides of the divide.
You said:
Each organism exists and begins as an individual creation. That is a natural reality. So if you believe that God creates living things at all,you should know that he creates them directly and individually. The use of natural elements does not mean that creation is indirect. It is God who makes natural things live,and therefore,exist as organisms,by giving spirit to them.
I ask, what implications does this have for the theory of evolution? Even accepting all you say here, I still see evolution taking place as described scientifically. I don't see evolution ignoring individual existence. It depends on individuals existing which are different and unique, which have distinct traits expressing distinct genetic formulations.
You seem to think the direct creation (albeit using natural elements) of individuals conflicts with the process of evolution and speciation. But I can't see where it does. Indeed, it seems to me that your view of individual reproduction (being both a fact of nature and an act of God) is entirely consistent with the theistic view of evolution (being both a fact of nature and an act of God).
